Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Babinski Reflex, first described in 1896, is still an integral part of the neurological examination. Many have studied the consistency of this reflex, but none have compared the inter- and intra-observer consistency of the Babinski reflex and its variants. METHODS: Thirty-four subjects were examined by six neurologists. The Babinski, Gordon, Chaddock, and Oppenheim reflexes were tested, and each neurologist concluded if the plantar response was flexor or extensor. Six subjects were re-tested 1 week later to determine intra-observer consistency. RESULTS: The Babinski reflex had the highest interobserver consistency with a kappa value of 0.5491. The Chaddock, Oppenheim, and Gordon reflexes had kappa values of 0.4065, 0.3739, and 0.3515, respectively. For intra-observer consistency, Gordon was the most consistent with a kappa value of 0.6731. When reflexes were combined in pairs, the Babinski and Chaddock reflexes together were the most reliable. CONCLUSIONS: The Babinski reflex was shown to be the most consistent between examiners. The Gordon reflex had the highest intra-observer consistency; however, the small sample size should limit conclusions drawn from this calculation. Clinicians often utilize more than one reflex to examine the plantar response; the combination of the Babinski and Chaddock reflexes was the most reliable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".